Talk:ádin

zero

Shouldn't "zero" be listed under a numeral or noun or something? 71.66.97.228 20:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Zero is a noun, ádin is a verb. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Aren't the other Navajo numerals listed with the header "numeral"? 71.66.97.228 21:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The other Navajo numerals are numerals. Ádin is a verb. Zero is a different part of speech from one, two, three in most languages. In Navajo, it is a verb. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see verb use such as łį́į́ʼ éí ádin -> "there are zero horses". However, I'm unsure how to use this word when referencing zero as an object or subject of a sentence. Is the nominalized form (ádiní) used instead?

I'd like to suggest also that a verb gloss be given for verb senses; I'll add one now for ádin and názbąs, but please change it if necessary. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

When counting zero, one, two, three, four, etc., or three, two, one, zero, the word for zero is either ádin or názbąs. When you say łį́į́ʼ ádin, it just means there is no horse, or are no horses. The nominalized form ádiní isn’t nominalized for itself, the nominalization is for the phrase that ádin is a part of. For example, Dził Bizhiʼ Ádiní, or Mountain Without a Name, the nominalization on ádiní is not for ádin, but for "Dził Bizhiʼ Ádiní". That is, ádin isn’t nominalized, the phrase is nominalized. If you remove the nominalization (Dził Bizhiʼ Ádin), then it just means the mountain has no name (not a phrase or proper noun, but just three independent words).

I am not too keen on trying to force zero into the form of an English verb. Although ádin is a verb, it can mean simply zero, and not "it is zero in number" or anything like that. That big header that says ===VERB=== is too prominent...it ought to be de-emphasized, as in incidentally, it is actually a verb in Navajo. Rigid parts of speech that must always act like the POS that they are, and be treated like the POS that they are, is a feature of English (and other Indo-European language)...it isn’t like that in Navajo. Some linguists only count three parts of speech for Navajo: verb, noun, and particle...and the lines that separate them are not always clear. —Stephen ^(Talk) 23:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern about trying to force terms into possibly inappropriate parts of speech; however, in English, and here on WT, we need to be able to describe a word in terms of its part of speech, and the convention is to use the most common POSes for English -- adjective, verb, noun, etc. -- where a term from a different language is filed under the POS most appropriate to each sense / usage. Japanese -i adjectives are basically stative verbs, but we class them as adjectives here on WT, for example.

With that in mind, since ádin is used in counting and not as a verb when using the zero sense, it would seem most appropriate to add a ===Cardinal number=== heading with the zero sense listed there, and a usage note explaining that this term is only used as zero when counting in the abstract. Similarly for názbąs if that is used the same way for its zero sense.

(As a side note, I was guessing that ádiní might be an analog to the -í nominalized form tʼááłáʼí, but apparently not.) -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the English part of speech for zero, which is one of the meanings of ádin and názbąs, is a noun. I think it is incorrect to try to force the English noun into the same mold as the Navajo verb, and doing so gives the wrong meaning to the Navajo word.

English zero can be considered a cardinal number, but ádin and názbąs aren’t. They mean something in English that is a cardinal number, but that does not make them cardinal numbers. That’s like saying nothing, nil, and nought are cardinal numbers because they can mean the same thing as zero. Or that oh is a cardinal number, because it is commonly used in place of zero. (It’s debatable whether zero is a cardinal number.)

I think it is a mistake to try to identify the part of speech of a word in a given foreign language based on its English translation. Likewise, it is a mistake to insist that the English translation of a foreign word be the same part of speech as the foreign word. That often works out among closely related languages, like the Indo-European languages, but sometimes it does not. When the languages are unrelated, it is very common that a foreign word in one part of speech translates most accurately to an English word of a different part of speech. —Stephen ^(Talk) 01:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Let me pose a different question. If a Navajo speaker were to count in Navajo from negative 5 to positive 5, what word would they use for 0? If ádin is the word used in this context, then in this context the word is being used as a number. Calling it a verb in this context is not a useful or meaningful description for the English readers who are the target audience for the English Wiktionary.

I'm perfectly happy with ádin being described as a verb, in verb contexts. Sometimes words do double duty. Recording in English can be classified under multiple parts of speech, for instance -- it is the present participle ("I am recording something at the studio"), it is a gerund ("I like recording at the studio"), and it is also a noun ("I have a recording that I made at the studio").

If ádin is used as a number in mathematical or other numerical contexts, then the ádin entry should account for that. Perhaps the more generic ===Number=== header would be more appropriate, as used at the Japanese entry for 三, for instance. A separate etyl could also be provided to describe the derivation of this sense from the root meaning, and a usage note to explain the use of the term in this way. Some examples of valid and invalid use would also be helpful.

-- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In counting from -5 to +5, you can use either ádin or názbąs. Lots of languages do the same thing. In Ojibwe, one word for zero is gaawiin gegoo ("not something"/"nothing"), and another is waawiyebii'igan ("drawn circle"); in Hawaiian, it is ʻole (to deny, lacking, nothing, without); in Rapa Nui, kokore (without); in Vietnamese, it is số không (the not number). zero itself is from an Arabic word that means "it was empty". —Stephen ^(Talk) 03:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

See also...?

It's not at all clear how názbąs is relevant here as a "see also" item; the only similarity I can see is that both verbs are neuter verbs. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:01, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think názbąs is also used for zero, but treats it as a shape rather than a quantity. A bit like English zero and oh. —Stephen ^(Talk) 07:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Stephen for the explanation above, and for the edit to názbąs; that makes more sense now. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)